G.R. No. 189607 April 18, 2016
Renato A. Castillo, Petitioner, vs. Lea P. De Leon Castillo, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Renato A. Castillo filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of his marriage to respondent Lea P. De Leon Castillo, contracted on January 6, 1979, on the ground of bigamy. He alleged that Lea had a prior subsisting marriage to Benjamin Bautista celebrated on May 25, 1972. Lea opposed, contending her first marriage was void ab initio for lack of a marriage license and because the solemnizing officer was not a member of their denomination. She subsequently obtained a judicial declaration of nullity for that first marriage on January 22, 2003.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Renato’s petition, declaring the second marriage void ab initio under Article 41 of the Family Code. The RTC ruled that since no judicial declaration nullifying the first marriage existed at the time of the second marriage in 1979, the first marriage was presumed valid, rendering the second marriage bigamous. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding that the applicable law was the Civil Code, not the Family Code, as both marriages were celebrated before the Family Code’s effectivity. The CA further ruled that under the Civil Code, a void marriage, like Lea’s first, could be presumed null without a prior judicial declaration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC and upholding the validity of the second marriage, despite the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage at the time the second marriage was contracted.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision, upholding the validity of the second marriage. The legal logic is anchored on the applicable law at the time the marriages were celebrated. Since both marriages were solemnized in 1972 and 1979, the governing law is the Civil Code, not the Family Code which introduced the requirement of a judicial declaration of absolute nullity for remarriage under Article 40.
Under the Civil Code, a marriage that is void ab initio (such as one lacking a license) is considered legally nonexistent from the beginning. Consequently, such a void marriage does not require a judicial declaration for its nullity to be invoked; it can be attacked collaterally at any time. The Court clarified that the judicial declaration under the Civil Code merely constitutes a recognition of a pre-existing fact of nullity; it does not create the nullity. Therefore, since Lea’s first marriage was void from its inception, she was legally free to contract a second marriage in 1979. The subsequent judicial decree in 2003 merely confirmed this pre-existing nullity and did not retroactively invalidate the second marriage. The second marriage is thus valid.